I don't want to seem more grumpy than usual, but this thread is (or at least was) about a MINIMAL XP, with no network.

Now, a 280 Mb build (which is a HUGE MASS OF BLOAT) or testing a Firewall on a build with NO network support seem to me like really, really off-topic.

I do understand how wimb cannot possibly refrain to publicize his (BTW very nice ) tools/builds all over the board on *any* topic, but a firewall? Comeon (unless of course we rename this thread "Post any crazy app that you may want to try" )

The point was to get a MINIMAL XP which has support for USB-mouse and keyboard, which can be considered as a basic requirement.

Look, you can stamp your feet as hard and for all the time you want, but 280 Mb is NOT IN THE LEAST "minimal" and has NOTHING to do with this thread.The fact that your build is a very nice thingy , doesn't really mean that it belongs here, not even remotely.Whilst USB mouse and keyboard may be a "basic" requirement, along the "phylosophy" of this thread it NEEDS to be "modular".And IE8, WLAN and Audio :

I will try with one of the usual carpenter's examples:Topic: How to make a perfectly balanced hammer with added features/tools?Contribution #1 (by Dietmar): Here is a tentative design for a 300 g hammer.Contribution #2 (by jaclaz): Here is a way to add to it optionally a nail straightener.Contribution #3 (by Misty): Here is a way to add to it optionally a softer handle.Contribution #4 (by wimb): FORGET about the hammer, get a whole toolbox, I make one and it is much better than any simple hammer.Contribution #5 (by TheHive): Why don't you try on your hammer this new high speed drill bit?Reply (by Wonko the Sane): Guys, you maybe have misunderstood the scope of this thread, which is about HAMMERS (AND NOT toolboxes, AND NOT power tools).Added as provocation (by Wonko the Sane): wimb, don't try to play the smart guy with me , I have been assembling toolboxes, and d@mn good ones , since YEARS, most probably before you even came near a NT OS , JFYI:http://reboot.pro/5679/http://www.msfn.org/...educing-bartpe/

Wonko,In my opinion, a 10MB XP CLI is not really possible when we need some basic functionality, which adds more MBytes to the image.I thing Wimb's IMG_XPCMD.exe is the right way here (once he's able to add USB-HID support), and the image size won't be too large.I think we can all live with a few more MBytes...right?

Wimb,Can you add to IMG_XP_Compact.exe to use the currently running WinXP (Installed Windows folder) as source, like you did with IMG_XPCMD.exe?Also, could you add ISO files as source, not just IMG and VHD?

Wonko,In my opinion, a 10MB XP CLI is not really possible when we need some basic functionality, which adds more MBytes to the image.I thing Wimb's IMG_XPCMD.exe is the right way here (once he's able to add USB-HID support), and the image size won't be too large.

Sure , and your opinion is much respected, as well as wimb's - as said - very nice thingy, simply BOTH do not belong to this thread.

I think we can all live with a few more MBytes...right?

I personally cannot.

even if I could, I would post on ANOTHER thread AND NOT on this one, which is about a MINIMAL build.

If you had actually READ this thread, you might have noticed post #32 where I tentatively set some "limitation of scope" (and sizes) and post #102 where some of the Rules (for this game) were additionally set.On this thread I would like to play this game (tressette):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TressetteAND NOT another game (Bridge):http://en.wikipedia....idge_(card_game)(though NOT having anything against Bridge, if you have with you a deck of 40 cards and like tressette you shouldn't be bothered by bridge fanboys telling you how bridge is a far superior game to play than tresette - BTW it is - but it needs - among other things - 12 more cards)

Of course you, wimb and TheHive (and anyone else) are perfectly free to hijack this thread, making it become the support thread for ANOTHER project, only, now you know how I don't appreciate this behaviour, that I find - besides foolish - abusive .

Modular design does not mean limiting to only one growth path. If adding networking or anything else that one would deem usefull. Then why not. The base for a minimal build would have been created already. so if a user wants minimal build of less then 50mb, 40mb, and so on then they already can see it in fruition.

280 Mb is NOT IN THE LEAST "minimal"

That is a minimal build. If it were a 1Gb file then maybe it wouldnt be minimal.

Modular design does not mean limiting to only one growth path. If adding networking or anything else that one would deem usefull. Then why not. The base for a minimal build would have been created already. so if a user wants minimal build of less then 50mb, 40mb, and so on then they already can see it in fruition.

Sure , but testing a firewall on a build that has not (yet) internet/network remains foolish.Graphical example:

Spoiler

That is a minimal build. If it were a 1Gb file then maybe it wouldnt be minimal.

No, it isn't.It is quite easy to have an almost "normal" XP in 250÷300 Mb by simply using nlite.

I have created a topic in the Winbuilder forum for any further discussion on the MiniXP project (see here) - sorry for unintentionally hijacking this thread Wonko.

Please could all MiniXP feedback, comments or suggestions be posted in this new thread. The MiniXP site and project have been updated. I have not made any major changes, but hopefully this is another step towards achieving my aim of a successful build every time! wimb's source files continue to be a major contributing factor to the project rewrites. Let's home this time I've covered all of the bases in terms of source files.

I will continue to test and experiment with Dietmar's builds and eagerly await any developments. Good luck Wonko!

Thanks.

Regards,

Misty

p.s. We may all have our own opinions on what constitutes a minimum build, however this thread is not in my opinion the best place to discuss them.

This is what happens when info is partial .cdob's only lists the Registry key (but NOT the actual needed files).If you compare wimb's post:http://reboot.pro/16765/#entry153161with contents of USB.INF (on the XP cd), you should find the files that are missing, at least:usbccgp.sysusbui.dlland possibly (but cannot say) usbd.sys.

DO review what wimb put together , the IMG_XPCMD thingy or whatever it is called.

I could have started a new thread about "Registered DLL's SDK" , but in my simplicity the attached thingy is nothing but a half-assed couple of batches, a lousy excel spreadsheet, a completely assed Autohotkey script, and some 2x502=1004 .reg files (these latter completely UNLIKE tested ).

The idea is that 3/4 of the issues are when a .dll is unregistered and it is not "fully" re-registered with regsvr32.

I used the very nice regdllview by Nirsoft to:

list the registered dll's

make for each of them an UNregistering .reg file

made for each of them a REregistering .reg files

UNregistering .reg's are in folder UNreg, REregistering .reg's are in folder REreg .Name is simply filename.ext.reg.I found in a freshly installed XP (SP0) 502 entries.I made a small spreadsheet out of the output of dllregview.I find it useful as by cleverly using filters it helps in "grouping" different files belonging to the same "subsystem".

If you know where your towel is, good , if you don't you won't have ANY use for the attachment.Basically it may be of some use ONLY to Misty, wimb and any other member willing to experiment with minimal builds.

This looks very interesting and will no doubt prove to be a useful reference. I've only had the chance to skim through it due to other commitments that will keep me busy for the next few days. Thanks for all of the hard work. I hope that this is helping with the winlogon experiments. "half-assed couple of batches, a lousy excel spreadsheet" - yeah, right!

Aren't we a crazy bunch? The one half tries to remove .Net and Printer support, the other half tries to add it.

And some people want to do both - hopefully on different projects!

@pscEx

...But IMHO it is still valid: WinBuilder created PE CDs are NOT a "light" Windows OS. They are build for rescue issues.

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with you, others fortunately do not. This diversity is probably due in part to people wanting different things from their PE's - some attempting to produce all the benefits of a full OS. This in not IMHO a bad thing as advances are often made as a result. The world would after all be a pretty boring place if we were all the same.

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with you, others fortunately do not. This diversity is probably due in part to people wanting different things from their PE's - some attempting to produce all the benefits of a full OS. This in not IMHO a bad thing as advances are often made as a result. The world would after all be a pretty boring place if we were all the same.

If you are interested, maybe you create a new topic to discuss this theme.It is very interesting, and should bring some important news about WinBuilder users' intentions.I would like to discuss in that topic (but I currently do not have the motivation / energy to create the topic).

I can confirm this part .Once again this thread (as well as the parallel efforts by wimb and Misty on similar projects, have nothing to do with PE (really, nothing, as they are light versions of the XP OS):More specifically:

XPCLI uses NOT Winbuilder, it is NOT a PE, and aims to have the really bare minimum needed to repair a system

MiniXP does use Winbuilder, BUT it is NOT a PE, and aims to have some more apps/things working

XPCMD uses NOT Winbuilder, it is NOT a PE, and aims to have even more functionalities of the OS (some of which completely unneeded/unuseful, though nice )

ALL THREE are NOT "kosher" (in my perverted mind) as all of them are currently based on Windows XP embedded minlogon, which is not redistributable (nothwistanding the fact that it is actually re-distributed since years form this board.So next step would be (for any programmer willing to help) to create a minlogon alternative, in the meantime my next goal is to add the possibility of using the standard winlogon (at the cost of quite a few more needed files -- and hence with an increase in size).

But IMHO it is still valid: WinBuilder created PE CDs are NOT a "light" Windows OS. They are build for rescue issues.

I.e., UNLIKE some other developer, we are using "XP" to mean - strangely enough - "XP" (and NOT to mean "PE").....

The interesting part for the developer of the latter project , might be that by booting picoXP (when on USB/hard disk) through NTLDR instead of SETUPLDR.BIN, predating from the ideas presented in this other thread:http://reboot.pro/12339/the booting time in a Qemu VM is roughly halved.